Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations is/are: “part”, “module” in claims 1-20.
Because this/these claim limitations is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters “SGM” and “RGM” have both been used to designate “source gas supply module”, “reaction gas supply module” (Figure 7). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “…the source gas supply module (Applicant’s SGM; Figure 5,7) is disposed between the first purge gas supply module (Applicant’s PGMx; Figure 7) and the second purge gas supply module (Applicant’s PGMx; Figure 7)…”, “the reaction gas supply module (Applicant’s RGM; Figure 4,7) is disposed between the first purge gas supply module (Applicant’s PGMx; Figure 7) and the third purge gas supply module (Applicant’s PGMx; Figure 7)”, “…exhaust hole (“holes”; throuhout; [0050])s (Applicant’s EXH; Figure 9) are defined between the source gas supply module (Applicant’s SGM; Figure 5,7) and the first purge gas supply module (Applicant’s PGMx; Figure 7) and between the reaction gas supply module (Applicant’s RGM; Figure 4,7) and the first purge gas supply module (Applicant’s PGMx; Figure 7)..” must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-11 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yudovsky; Joseph et al. (US 20130143415 A1). Yudovsky teaches an atomic layer deposition apparatus (Figure 1,4,5,9; [0012]-[0014]), comprising: a source gas supply part (804a, 804b; 904a; “first RX gas (A)”, “second gas port”, Figure 9; [0086]-Applicant’s SGPx; Figure 5) that supplies a plurality of source gases (A-E,Purge; Figure 9); a source gas supply module (“gas distribution plate”; 30; Figure 1,4,5; 930; Figure 9-Applicant’s SGM; Figure 5,7) connected to the source gas supply part (804a, 804b; 904a; “first RX gas (A)”, “second gas port”, Figure 9; [0086]-Applicant’s SGPx; Figure 5); a reaction gas supply part (A-E; 804a, 804b; 904a; [0054]-Figure 9-Applicant’s RSP; Figure 7) that supplies a reaction gas (A,B; 804a, 804b; 904a; [0054]-Figure 9); a reaction gas supply module (33; Figure 4A-Applicant’s RGM; Figure 4,7) connected to the reaction gas supply part (A-E; 804a, 804b; 904a; [0054]-Figure 9-Applicant’s RSP; Figure 7) and spaced apart (not shown by Applicants; see drawing objection) from the source gas supply module (“gas distribution plate”; 30; Figure 1,4,5; 930; Figure 9-Applicant’s SGM; Figure 5,7) in a first direction; and a first purge gas supply module (“Purge” for 804a; [0054]-Figure 9-Applicant’s PGMx; Figure 7) disposed between the source gas supply module (“gas distribution plate”; 30; Figure 1,4,5; 930; Figure 9-Applicant’s SGM; Figure 5,7) and the reaction gas supply module (33; Figure 4A-Applicant’s RGM; Figure 4,7), as claimed by claim 1. The above and below italisized claim text denotes intended use claim requirements for the pending apparatus claims. For example, the reactivity of a gas does not further limit the structuce for the pending apparatus claims. Further, it has been held that claim language that simply specifies an intended use or field of use for the invention generally will not limit the scope of a claim (Walter , 618 F.2d at 769, 205 USPQ at 409; MPEP 2106). Additionally, in apparatus claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim (In re Casey,152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto , 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); MPEP2115).
Yudovsky further teaches:
The atomic layer deposition apparatus (Figure 1,4,5,9; [0012]-[0014]) of claim 1, wherein the source gas supply part (804a, 804b; 904a; “first RX gas (A)”, “second gas port”, Figure 9; [0086]-Applicant’s SGPx; Figure 5) includes: a first source gas (A; Figure 9) supply part (904a; “first RX gas (A)”; Figure 9) that supplies a first source gas (A; Figure 9); a second source gas (B; Figure 9) supply part (804a, “second gas port”, Figure 9; [0086]) that supplies a second source gas (B; Figure 9); and a third source gas (D; Figure 9) supply part (804b, Figure 9; [0086]-Applicant’s SGPx; Figure 5) that supplies a third source gas (D; Figure 9), as claimed by claim 2
The atomic layer deposition apparatus (Figure 1,4,5,9; [0012]-[0014]) of claim 2, wherein the source gas supply module (“gas distribution plate”; 30; Figure 1,4,5; 930; Figure 9-Applicant’s SGM; Figure 5,7) includes: a plurality of first source gas (A; Figure 9) nozzles (800a,b; Figure 9-Applicant’s SNZ1; Figure 5,8A,11A,14A, 18) connected to the first source gas (A; Figure 9) supply part (904a; “first RX gas (A)”; Figure 9); a plurality of second source gas (B; Figure 9) nozzles (802a,b; Figure 9-Applicant’s SNZ2; Figure 5,8A,11A,14A, 18) connected to the second source gas (B; Figure 9) supply part (804a, “second gas port”, Figure 9; [0086]); and a plurality of third source gas (D; Figure 9) nozzles (802b; Figure 9-Applicant’s SNZ3; Figure 5,8A,11A,14A, 18) connected to the third source gas (D; Figure 9) supply part (804b, Figure 9; [0086]-Applicant’s SGPx; Figure 5), as claimed by claim 3
The atomic layer deposition apparatus (Figure 1,4,5,9; [0012]-[0014]) of claim 3, wherein one of the plurality of first source gas (A; Figure 9) nozzles (800a,b; Figure 9-Applicant’s SNZ1; Figure 5,8A,11A,14A, 18), one of the plurality of second source gas (B; Figure 9) nozzles (802a,b; Figure 9-Applicant’s SNZ2; Figure 5,8A,11A,14A, 18), and one of the plurality of third source gas (D; Figure 9) nozzles (802b; Figure 9-Applicant’s SNZ3; Figure 5,8A,11A,14A, 18) are repeatedly arranged in sequence (Figure 9), as claimed by claim 4
The atomic layer deposition apparatus (Figure 1,4,5,9; [0012]-[0014]) of claim 3, further comprising: a first valve (first valve for “A”; Figure 9) that connects the first source gas (A; Figure 9) supply part (904a; “first RX gas (A)”; Figure 9) to the plurality of first source gas (A; Figure 9) nozzles (800a,b; Figure 9-Applicant’s SNZ1; Figure 5,8A,11A,14A, 18) and controls a supply of the first source gas (A; Figure 9); a second valve (806 second valve for “B”; Figure 9) that connects the second source gas (B; Figure 9) supply part (804a, “second gas port”, Figure 9; [0086]) to the plurality of second source gas (B; Figure 9) nozzles (802a,b; Figure 9-Applicant’s SNZ2; Figure 5,8A,11A,14A, 18) and controls a supply of the second source gas (B; Figure 9); and a third valve (806 for third valve for “D”; Figure 9) that connects the third source gas (D; Figure 9) supply part (804b, Figure 9; [0086]-Applicant’s SGPx; Figure 5) to the plurality of third source gas (D; Figure 9) nozzles (802b; Figure 9-Applicant’s SNZ3; Figure 5,8A,11A,14A, 18) and controls a supply of the third source gas (D; Figure 9), wherein the first, second, and third valves (valves; Figure 9-Applicant’s VALx; Figure 5) are sequentially opened, as claimed by claim 5
The atomic layer deposition apparatus (Figure 1,4,5,9; [0012]-[0014]) of claim 5, wherein each of the first, second, and third valves (valves; Figure 9-Applicant’s VALx; Figure 5) includes a first valve part (first valve for “A”; Figure 9-Applicant’s VU1; Figure 6) , a second valve part (806 second valve for “B”; Figure 9-Applicant’s VU2; Figure 6) , a third valve part (806 for third valve for “D”; Figure 9-Applicant’s VU3; Figure 6) , and a fourth valve part ( 806 for third valve for “purge”), an end of the first valve part (first valve for “A”; Figure 9-Applicant’s VU1; Figure 6) and an end of the second valve part (806 second valve for “B”; Figure 9-Applicant’s VU2; Figure 6) are connected to a corresponding one of the first, second, and third source gas (A,B,D; Figure 9) supply parts (904A,804a,804b, Figure 9; [0086]-Applicant’s SGPx; Figure 5), another end of the second valve part (806 second valve for “B”; Figure 9-Applicant’s VU2; Figure 6) is connected to an end of the third valve part (806 for third valve for “D”; Figure 9-Applicant’s VU3; Figure 6) , another end of the first valve part (first valve for “A”; Figure 9-Applicant’s VU1; Figure 6) is connected to another end of the third valve part (806 for third valve for “D”; Figure 9-Applicant’s VU3; Figure 6) , the fourth valve part ( 806 for third valve for “purge”) is supplied with a carrier gas and is connected to the end of the third valve part (806 for third valve for “D”; Figure 9-Applicant’s VU3; Figure 6) , and the another end of the third valve part (806 for third valve for “D”; Figure 9-Applicant’s VU3; Figure 6) is connected to a corresponding one of the plurality of first source gas (A; Figure 9) nozzles (800a,b; Figure 9-Applicant’s SNZ1; Figure 5,8A,11A,14A, 18), the plurality of second source gas (B; Figure 9) nozzles (802a,b; Figure 9-Applicant’s SNZ2; Figure 5,8A,11A,14A, 18), and the plurality of third source gas (D; Figure 9) nozzles (802b; Figure 9-Applicant’s SNZ3; Figure 5,8A,11A,14A, 18), as claimed by claim 6
The atomic layer deposition apparatus (Figure 1,4,5,9; [0012]-[0014]) of claim 6, wherein the source gas supply module (“gas distribution plate”; 30; Figure 1,4,5; 930; Figure 9-Applicant’s SGM; Figure 5,7) receives and supplies the first, second, and third source gases (A-E,Purge; Figure 9) to a substrate (61; Figure 1), the reaction gas supply module (33; Figure 4A-Applicant’s RGM; Figure 4,7) receives and supplies the reaction gas (A,B; 804a, 804b; 904a; [0054]-Figure 9) to the substrate (61; Figure 1), the first purge gas supply module (“Purge” for 804a; [0054]-Figure 9-Applicant’s PGMx; Figure 7) supplies a purge gas to the substrate (61; Figure 1), in case that the first, second, and third source gases (A-E,Purge; Figure 9) are supplied, the first, second, and fourth valve parts (806; Figure 9) are opened and the third valve part (806 for third valve for “D”; Figure 9-Applicant’s VU3; Figure 6) is closed, and in case that supplies of the first, second, and third source gases (A-E,Purge; Figure 9) are interrupted, the first and second valve part (806 second valve for “B”; Figure 9-Applicant’s VU2; Figure 6) s are closed and the third and fourth valve parts (806; Figure 9) are opened, as claimed by claim 7
The atomic layer deposition apparatus (Figure 1,4,5,9; [0012]-[0014]) of claim 6, further comprising: a carrier gas supply part (“purge” for 904a,804a,b; Figure 9) that supplies the carrier gas, as claimed by claim 8
The atomic layer deposition apparatus (Figure 1,4,5,9; [0012]-[0014]) of claim 1, further comprising: a second purge gas supply module (“Purge” for 804b; [0054]-Figure 9-Applicant’s PGMx; Figure 7) and a third purge gas supply module (“Purge” for 904a; [0054]-Figure 9-Applicant’s PGMx; Figure 7), wherein the source gas supply module (“gas distribution plate”; 30; Figure 1,4,5; 930; Figure 9-Applicant’s SGM; Figure 5,7) is disposed between the first purge gas supply module (“Purge” for 804a; [0054]-Figure 9-Applicant’s PGMx; Figure 7) and the second purge gas supply module (“Purge” for 804b; [0054]-Figure 9-Applicant’s PGMx; Figure 7), and the reaction gas supply module (33; Figure 4A-Applicant’s RGM; Figure 4,7) is disposed between the first purge gas supply module (“Purge” for 804a; [0054]-Figure 9-Applicant’s PGMx; Figure 7) and the third purge gas supply module (“Purge” for 904a; [0054]-Figure 9-Applicant’s PGMx; Figure 7), as claimed by claim 9. The claimed “disposed between” clause is interpretted by the Examiner as having Applicant’s nozzles “RNZ” in the claimed relative position for the claimed gas supply module. Further, the claimed relative positions are noted to be met by Yudovsky’s valve open/closed states in Figure 9 meeting the claimed requirements. Applicant has not provided sufficient distinguishing structural characteristics of Applicant's claimed invention to contrast the Examiner's cited prior art. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Examer notes MPEP 2112 which states the express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103. "The inherent teaching of a prior art reference, a question of fact, arises both in the context of anticipation and obviousness." In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (affirmed a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection based in part on inherent disclosure in one of the references). See also In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 739, 218 USPQ 769, 775 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
The atomic layer deposition apparatus (Figure 1,4,5,9; [0012]-[0014]) of claim 1, wherein exhaust hole (“holes”; throuhout; [0050])s (“pump”; Figure 9-Applicant’s EXH; Figure 9) are defined between the source gas supply module (“gas distribution plate”; 30; Figure 1,4,5; 930; Figure 9-Applicant’s SGM; Figure 5,7) and the first purge gas supply module (“Purge” for 804a; [0054]-Figure 9-Applicant’s PGMx; Figure 7) and between the reaction gas supply module (33; Figure 4A-Applicant’s RGM; Figure 4,7) and the first purge gas supply module (“Purge” for 804a; [0054]-Figure 9-Applicant’s PGMx; Figure 7), as claimed by claim 10. As above, the claimed “disposed between” clause is interpretted by the Examiner as having Applicant’s nozzles “RNZ” in the claimed relative position for the claimed gas supply module. Further, the claimed relative positions are noted to be met by Yudovsky’s valve open/closed states in Figure 9 meeting the claimed requirements. Applicant has not provided sufficient distinguishing structural characteristics of Applicant's claimed invention to contrast the Examiner's cited prior art. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Examer notes MPEP 2112 which states the express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103. "The inherent teaching of a prior art reference, a question of fact, arises both in the context of anticipation and obviousness." In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (affirmed a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection based in part on inherent disclosure in one of the references). See also In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 739, 218 USPQ 769, 775 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
The atomic layer deposition apparatus (Figure 1,4,5,9; [0012]-[0014]) of claim 10, further comprising: a pumping module (150; Figure 1,9) connected to the exhaust hole (“holes”; throuhout; [0050])s (“pump”; Figure 9-Applicant’s EXH; Figure 9) and providing an exhaust pressure to the exhaust hole (“holes”; throuhout; [0050])s (“pump”; Figure 9-Applicant’s EXH; Figure 9), as claimed by claim 11
The atomic layer deposition apparatus (Figure 1,4,5,9; [0012]-[0014]) of claim 1, wherein the plurality of source gases (A-E,Purge; Figure 9) are mixed in the source gas supply part (804a, 804b; 904a; “first RX gas (A)”, “second gas port”, Figure 9; [0086]-Applicant’s SGPx; Figure 5) and are supplied to the source gas supply module (“gas distribution plate”; 30; Figure 1,4,5; 930; Figure 9-Applicant’s SGM; Figure 5,7), as claimed by claim 16. Yudovsky can accomplish the claimed mixing by all, or the required number of Yudovsky’s valves of Figure 9 being open or in such a state as to accompish the claimed use. Applicant has not provided sufficient distinguishing structural characteristics of Applicant's claimed invention to contrast the Examiner's cited prior art. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Examer notes MPEP 2112 which states the express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103. "The inherent teaching of a prior art reference, a question of fact, arises both in the context of anticipation and obviousness." In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (affirmed a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection based in part on inherent disclosure in one of the references). See also In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 739, 218 USPQ 769, 775 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
The atomic layer deposition apparatus (Figure 1,4,5,9; [0012]-[0014]) of claim 16, wherein the plurality of source gases (A-E,Purge; Figure 9) are mixed at different ratios, as claimed by claim 17. Yudovsky can accomplish the claimed mixing by all, or the required number of Yudovsky’s valves of Figure 9 being open or in such a state as to accompish the claimed use. Applicant has not provided sufficient distinguishing structural characteristics of Applicant's claimed invention to contrast the Examiner's cited prior art. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Examer notes MPEP 2112 which states the express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103. "The inherent teaching of a prior art reference, a question of fact, arises both in the context of anticipation and obviousness." In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (affirmed a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection based in part on inherent disclosure in one of the references). See also In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 739, 218 USPQ 769, 775 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
An atomic layer deposition apparatus (Figure 1,4,5,9; [0012]-[0014]), comprising: a first source gas (A; Figure 9) supply part (904a; “first RX gas (A)”; Figure 9) that supplies a first source gas (A; Figure 9); a second source gas (B; Figure 9) supply part (804a, “second gas port”, Figure 9; [0086]) that supplies a second source gas (B; Figure 9); a third source gas (D; Figure 9) supply part (804b, Figure 9; [0086]-Applicant’s SGPx; Figure 5) that supplies a third source gas (D; Figure 9); a source gas supply module (“gas distribution plate”; 30; Figure 1,4,5; 930; Figure 9-Applicant’s SGM; Figure 5,7) connected to the first, second, and third source gas (A,B,D; Figure 9) supply parts (904A,804a,804b, Figure 9; [0086]-Applicant’s SGPx; Figure 5); a first valve (first valve for “A”; Figure 9) that connects the first source gas (A; Figure 9) supply part (904a; “first RX gas (A)”; Figure 9) to the source gas supply module (“gas distribution plate”; 30; Figure 1,4,5; 930; Figure 9-Applicant’s SGM; Figure 5,7) and controls a supply of the first source gas (A; Figure 9); a second valve (806 second valve for “B”; Figure 9) that connects the second source gas (B; Figure 9) supply part (804a, “second gas port”, Figure 9; [0086]) to the source gas supply module (“gas distribution plate”; 30; Figure 1,4,5; 930; Figure 9-Applicant’s SGM; Figure 5,7) and controls a supply of the second source gas (B; Figure 9); a third valve (806 for third valve for “D”; Figure 9) that connects the third source gas (D; Figure 9) supply part (804b, Figure 9; [0086]-Applicant’s SGPx; Figure 5) to the source gas supply module (“gas distribution plate”; 30; Figure 1,4,5; 930; Figure 9-Applicant’s SGM; Figure 5,7) and controls a supply of the third source gas (D; Figure 9); a reaction gas supply part (A-E; 804a, 804b; 904a; [0054]-Figure 9-Applicant’s RSP; Figure 7) that supplies a reaction gas (A,B; 804a, 804b; 904a; [0054]-Figure 9); a reaction gas supply module (33; Figure 4A-Applicant’s RGM; Figure 4,7) connected to the reaction gas supply part (A-E; 804a, 804b; 904a; [0054]-Figure 9-Applicant’s RSP; Figure 7) and spaced apart (not shown by Applicants; see drawing objection) from the source gas supply module (“gas distribution plate”; 30; Figure 1,4,5; 930; Figure 9-Applicant’s SGM; Figure 5,7) in a first direction; and a first purge gas supply module (“Purge” for 804a; [0054]-Figure 9-Applicant’s PGMx; Figure 7) disposed between the source gas supply module (“gas distribution plate”; 30; Figure 1,4,5; 930; Figure 9-Applicant’s SGM; Figure 5,7) and the reaction gas supply module (33; Figure 4A-Applicant’s RGM; Figure 4,7), as claimed by claim 18. The claimed “disposed between” clause is interpretted by the Examiner as having Applicant’s nozzles “RNZ” in the claimed relative position for the claimed gas supply module. Further, the claimed relative positions are noted to be met by Yudovsky’s valve open/closed states in Figure 9 meeting the claimed requirements. Applicant has not provided sufficient distinguishing structural characteristics of Applicant's claimed invention to contrast the Examiner's cited prior art. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Examer notes MPEP 2112 which states the express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103. "The inherent teaching of a prior art reference, a question of fact, arises both in the context of anticipation and obviousness." In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (affirmed a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection based in part on inherent disclosure in one of the references). See also In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 739, 218 USPQ 769, 775 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
The atomic layer deposition apparatus (Figure 1,4,5,9; [0012]-[0014]) of claim 18, wherein the first, second, and third valves (valves; Figure 9-Applicant’s VALx; Figure 5) are sequentially opened, as claimed by claim 19
The atomic layer deposition apparatus (Figure 1,4,5,9; [0012]-[0014]) of claim 18, wherein the source gas supply module (“gas distribution plate”; 30; Figure 1,4,5; 930; Figure 9-Applicant’s SGM; Figure 5,7) includes: a plurality of first source gas (A; Figure 9) nozzles (800a,b; Figure 9-Applicant’s SNZ1; Figure 5,8A,11A,14A, 18) connected through the first valve (first valve for “A”; Figure 9) to the first source gas (A; Figure 9) supply part (904a; “first RX gas (A)”; Figure 9); a plurality of second source gas (B; Figure 9) nozzles (802a,b; Figure 9-Applicant’s SNZ2; Figure 5,8A,11A,14A, 18) connected through the second valve (806 second valve for “B”; Figure 9) to the second source gas (B; Figure 9) supply part (804a, “second gas port”, Figure 9; [0086]); and a plurality of third source gas (D; Figure 9) nozzles (802b; Figure 9-Applicant’s SNZ3; Figure 5,8A,11A,14A, 18) connected through the third valve (806 for third valve for “D”; Figure 9) to the third source gas (D; Figure 9) supply part (804b, Figure 9; [0086]-Applicant’s SGPx; Figure 5), as claimed by claim 20
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole (“holes”; throuhout; [0050]) would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yudovsky; Joseph et al. (US 20130143415 A1) in view of Thie; William et al. (US 20220108875 A1). Yudovsky is discussed above. Yudovsky does not teach plumbing connections for single gas source(s) providing gas to plural first, second, and third nozzles as shown in Applicant’s Figure 18. As a result, Yudovsky does not teach:
The atomic layer deposition apparatus (Figure 1,4,5,9; [0012]-[0014]) of claim 3, further comprising: a first valve (first valve for “A”; Figure 9) that connects the first source gas (A; Figure 9) supply part (904a; “first RX gas (A)”; Figure 9) to the plurality of first source gas (A; Figure 9) nozzles (800a,b; Figure 9-Applicant’s SNZ1; Figure 5,8A,11A,14A, 18), the plurality of second source gas (B; Figure 9) nozzles (802a,b; Figure 9-Applicant’s SNZ2; Figure 5,8A,11A,14A, 18), and the plurality of third source gas (D; Figure 9) nozzles (802b; Figure 9-Applicant’s SNZ3; Figure 5,8A,11A,14A, 18) and controls a supply of the first source gas (A; Figure 9); a second valve (806 second valve for “B”; Figure 9) that connects the second source gas (B; Figure 9) supply part (804a, “second gas port”, Figure 9; [0086]) to the plurality of first source gas (A; Figure 9) nozzles (800a,b; Figure 9-Applicant’s SNZ1; Figure 5,8A,11A,14A, 18), the plurality of second source gas (B; Figure 9) nozzles (802a,b; Figure 9-Applicant’s SNZ2; Figure 5,8A,11A,14A, 18), and the plurality of third source gas (D; Figure 9) nozzles (802b; Figure 9-Applicant’s SNZ3; Figure 5,8A,11A,14A, 18) and controls a supply of the second source gas (B; Figure 9); and a third valve (806 for third valve for “D”; Figure 9) that connects the third source gas (D; Figure 9) supply part (804b, Figure 9; [0086]-Applicant’s SGPx; Figure 5) to the plurality of first source gas (A; Figure 9) nozzles (800a,b; Figure 9-Applicant’s SNZ1; Figure 5,8A,11A,14A, 18), the plurality of second source gas (B; Figure 9) nozzles (802a,b; Figure 9-Applicant’s SNZ2; Figure 5,8A,11A,14A, 18), and the plurality of third source gas (D; Figure 9) nozzles (802b; Figure 9-Applicant’s SNZ3; Figure 5,8A,11A,14A, 18) and controls a supply of the third source gas (D; Figure 9), wherein the first, second, and third valves (valves; Figure 9-Applicant’s VALx; Figure 5) are sequentially opened, as claimed by claim 12
The atomic layer deposition apparatus (Figure 1,4,5,9; [0012]-[0014]) of claim 12, further comprising: a first flow controller connected to the first valve (first valve for “A”; Figure 9) and controlling a flow rate of the first source gas (A; Figure 9); a second flow controller connected to the second valve (806 second valve for “B”; Figure 9) and controlling a flow rate of the second source gas (B; Figure 9); a third flow controller connected to the third valve (806 for third valve for “D”; Figure 9) and controlling a flow rate of the third source gas (D; Figure 9); and a mixture part connected to the first, second, and third flow controllers and to the plurality of first source gas (A; Figure 9) nozzles (800a,b; Figure 9-Applicant’s SNZ1; Figure 5,8A,11A,14A, 18), the plurality of second source gas (B; Figure 9) nozzles (802a,b; Figure 9-Applicant’s SNZ2; Figure 5,8A,11A,14A, 18), and the plurality of third source gas (D; Figure 9) nozzles (802b; Figure 9-Applicant’s SNZ3; Figure 5,8A,11A,14A, 18), mixing the first, second, and third source gases (A-E,Purge; Figure 9) that are provided from the first, second, and third flow controllers, and supplying the mixed first, second, and third source gases (A-E,Purge; Figure 9) to the plurality of first source gas (A; Figure 9) nozzles (800a,b; Figure 9-Applicant’s SNZ1; Figure 5,8A,11A,14A, 18), the plurality of second source gas (B; Figure 9) nozzles (802a,b; Figure 9-Applicant’s SNZ2; Figure 5,8A,11A,14A, 18), and the plurality of third source gas (D; Figure 9) nozzles (802b; Figure 9-Applicant’s SNZ3; Figure 5,8A,11A,14A, 18), as claimed by claim 13
The atomic layer deposition apparatus (Figure 1,4,5,9; [0012]-[0014]) of claim 13, wherein the flow rates of the first, second, and third source gases (A-E,Purge; Figure 9) are independently controlled by the first, second, and third flow controllers, as claimed by claim 14
Thie also teaches a wafer processing apparatus (Figure 2A) including upstream plumbing and valve controller (240; Figure 2A) for delivering desired gas mixturer ratios at desired locations in Thie’s showerhead.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Yudovsky to add Thie’s additional plumbing fittings and Thie’s controller as taught by Thie.
Motivation for Yudovsky to add Thie’s additional plumbing fittings and Thie’s controller as taught by Thie is for process optimizations for “for specific processes, recipes, gases and gas mixtures, etc. to achieve desired etch and deposition uniformities.” as taught by Thie ([0025]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yudovsky; Joseph et al. (US 20130143415 A1) in view of Panavalappil Kumarankutty; Hanish Kumar et al. (US 20200291522 A1). Yudovsky is discussed above. Yudovsky does not teach the atomic layer deposition apparatus (Figure 1,4,5,9; [0012]-[0014]) of claim 1, wherein the source gas supply module (“gas distribution plate”; 30; Figure 1,4,5; 930; Figure 9-Applicant’s SGM; Figure 5,7) includes a plurality of first source gas (A; Figure 9) nozzles (800a,b; Figure 9-Applicant’s SNZ1; Figure 5,8A,11A,14A, 18), a plurality of second source gas (B; Figure 9) nozzles (802a,b; Figure 9-Applicant’s SNZ2; Figure 5,8A,11A,14A, 18), and a plurality of third source gas (D; Figure 9) nozzle, which supply different ones of the plurality of source gases (A-E,Purge; Figure 9), each of the plurality of first source gas (A; Figure 9) nozzles (800a,b; Figure 9-Applicant’s SNZ1; Figure 5,8A,11A,14A, 18) includes a first source hole (“holes”; throuhout; [0050]), each of the plurality of second source gas (B; Figure 9) nozzles (802a,b; Figure 9-Applicant’s SNZ2; Figure 5,8A,11A,14A, 18) includes a second source hole (“holes”; throuhout; [0050]), each of the plurality of third source gas (D; Figure 9) nozzles (802b; Figure 9-Applicant’s SNZ3; Figure 5,8A,11A,14A, 18) includes a third source hole (“holes”; throuhout; [0050]), the first source hole (“holes”; throuhout; [0050]), the second source hole (“holes”; throuhout; [0050]), and the third source hole (“holes”; throuhout; [0050]) of neighboring ones of the plurality of first source gas (A; Figure 9) nozzles (800a,b; Figure 9-Applicant’s SNZ1; Figure 5,8A,11A,14A, 18) – claim 15.
Yudovsky does not teach Yudovsky’s plurality of second source gas (B; Figure 9) nozzles (802a,b; Figure 9-Applicant’s SNZ2; Figure 5,8A,11A,14A, 18), and Yudovsky’s plurality of third source gas (D; Figure 9) nozzles (802b; Figure 9-Applicant’s SNZ3; Figure 5,8A,11A,14A, 18) are arranged in a diagonal direction (Applicant’s Figure 17), the diagonal direction is a direction that intersects the first direction and a second direction intersecting the first direction, and Yudovsky’s source gas supply module (“gas distribution plate”; 30; Figure 1,4,5; 930; Figure 9-Applicant’s SGM; Figure 5,7) extends in the second direction – claim 17
Panavalappil Kumarankutty also teaches a wafer processing apparatus (Figure 1) including a showerhead (Figure 2A) injecting three unmixed gases (A,B,C; Figure 2G) into dedicated holes (A-211; Figure 2C; B-213; Figure 2D; C-211; Figure 2F) in a a repeating geometry (Figure 2K).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Yudovsky to arrange Yudovsky’s gas holes (“holes”; throuhout; [0050]) as taught by Panavalappil Kumarankutty.
Motivation for Yudovsky to arrange Yudovsky’s gas holes (“holes”; throuhout; [0050]) as taught by Panavalappil Kumarankutty is modifications based on “process requirements for the substrate” as taught by Panavalappil Kumarankutty (column 9; line 64-column 10; line 15).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Unmixed process gas injection in zones and ratio contol include US 8551890 B2; US 20110256729 A1; US 20130196078 A1; US 20160068953 A1; US 20140127404 A1; US 20140373783 A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Rudy Zervigon whose telephone number is (571) 272- 1442. The examiner can normally be reached on a Monday through Thursday schedule from 8am through 6pm EST. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Any Inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the Chemical and Materials Engineering art unit receptionist at (571) 272-1700. If the examiner cannot be reached please contact the examiner's supervisor, Parviz Hassanzadeh, at (571) 272- 1435.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http:/Awww.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/Rudy Zervigon/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716